Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Samizdat Date: May 23, 2005 11:18am
Forum: etree Subject: Encoding/Decoding

If I have a .wma file of 1411kbps quality, which I encode to .wav, thereby reducing quality to 320kbps, but raising sample rate from 16-bit to 24-bit (then encoding the .wav to .flac for uploading to the Archive), have I in fact gained or lost quality?

Kindly flesh out the theory/practice, if you would. Great thanks!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 24, 2005 4:28am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

To add what's already been said: Anything you place in lossless .shn or .flac format here should already be from a lossless file source. Anything less is misleading to people expecting archival-quality files, and unfortunately could lead to bad feelings.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-05-24 11:28:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Samizdat Date: May 24, 2005 1:24am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

Let's remember that sound is a very subjective thing. For instance: the cat who gets the patch cord, perfectly engineered and produced recording might have a technically cleaner (albeit sterile) sound than the one standing a quarter of a mile away from the speakers with a cheap cassette recorder. As to whether the adulterated sound of the band alone, or the captured sounds of both band and crowd are "purer" or "better," is more matter of opinion and taste than theory.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 24, 2005 4:26am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

Agreed, but that's a separate issue from turning say, .wma or .mp3 files into .flac.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mitchell Date: May 23, 2005 11:54am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

I don't know. But, can you then break it up into 2 80 min. disks?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: xtifr Date: May 23, 2005 12:22pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

You can never increase the quality, only decrease it. WMA, to the best of my knowledge, is a lossy format, a little better than MP3, but not as good as OGG Vorbis. So, the basic answer is, no, you shouldn't do that. Beyond that, why on earth would you *reduce* the BPS when going to WAV? WAV does pretty much any sample frequency you desire. And no, most definitely, do not convert from 16 bit to 24 bit. That is completely silly. You will end up with a 16-bit quality file that takes a whole lot more space to store. You will gain nothing.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Samizdat Date: May 23, 2005 5:44pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Encoding/Decoding

Inputs greatly appreciated. Thanks, Folks!

Watch this thread for future updates on the soon-to-be-uploaded talent of the singer "Mystery."